Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

... the "on" button. Because no one has ever pressed an on button before. No one has turned a page. No one ever thought to make a phone a rectangle with rounded edges. The only ones these ideas are novel to are the nitwit patent attorney's who convince companies to pay them to file this crapola lol. But... I'm sure there's an app for that.

Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

It's a case of dumb and dumber really. In the end though, I'm not so worried about the one writing up this junk, I'm more worried about those approving it. Who's dumber really, the one who made the fail, or the one who fully endorses it?

But the gun is a killing machine, it was made by people, designed to be good at killing people sized things, it is sold by people, billions of dollars were spent by people to ensure the laws are so lax that anyone can buy one. If the gun is the result of all these peoples evil work, then it is to blame.

The patent is to blame, because its the embodiment of all those years of protectionism. All those companies lobbying for special laws to lock themselves into their markets, all those patent officers thinking

Well, thank goodness we finally have that sorted out. Has anyone informed the Supreme Court that "walterbyrd" on Slashdot has determined the root of this multinational, multi-claim nest of lawsuits involving hundreds of patents between Google/Motorola, Samsung and Apple is that "only Apple is to blame?" I'm pretty sure we can just put this whole thing to bed now.

sure it needs work since stupid patents get granted. the system grants patents because the system gets money based on how many patents were granted. the millions of patents being granted being a fine example of that, while novel ideas being patented is at an all time low.

Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all.

There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations. The PTO grants a massive amount of patents that should be invalid, as proven time again in the courts. The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds. They don't take responsibility and readily put forth the fact the standard for granting a patent is far below the stated requirements, so the courts are weary to just invalidate a patent -- believing that the patent office is actually doing it's job well, when in reality they'll let you patent essentially anything: If you want a weak patent that won't hold up in court, they're cool with that so long as you pay your fees, cross your t's, dot your i's, and replace all the terms such that the application won't generate any hits when searched in their patent database. First to File means that patent application secrecy is needless -- If you're filling a patent it should be public knowledge so we can protest anything that is obvious / file our prior art. Yes, it would take longer and be more expensive to grant patents, but just make those filing for the patents pay the bills; This would bring the cost of patents up closer to their actual cost -- No, instead it's basically a government subsidy for legal warheads.

Furthermore: Patents are not required to spurn innovation. Demand for innovation exists regardless of patents, and will generate drive for innovation by basic market forces regardless of granting monopolies. Look at the Automotive and Fashion industries -- Neither of which have design patents or copyright, and yet design is their core sales point, and they are very innovative in design. Patents and Copyright merely enforce artificial scarcity, when the artists and researchers could just as easily make their money without patents: Simply withhold their labor unless agreement to be payed for it is ensured (like car mechanics and home builders do, it's a proven system). If there are those who would not invest without monopoly assurances afterwards then those who will invest in research regardless will out compete them -- As proven by stagnant companies doing poorly in the automotive and fashion design industries compared to those who innovate without promise of monopoly. Anyone who fears Trade Secrecy / Trade Unions locking up innovation has never met a reverse engineer from this century. We strip layers off of microchips to discover their wiring at the nano scale. We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing. It's not economically feasible for secrets to exist in consumer products today, you can't hide the molecules and machine code from me (and yes, I do read and write fluently in machine code). [vortexcortex.com]

We have NO EVIDENCE that the patent system is fulfilling its goals. We don't know if it's harmful or not, but there are indications that point to it being harmful (frivolous patent lawsuits and bogus patents), and there are at least two data points that indicate patents are not required at all. The real problem with the patent system is that we did not do a test to see if it was beneficial. Everyone just assumes it is without ANY evidence to support their claims. We need to do the experiment and abolish patents to see if they were harmful or helpful. We can re-institute the laws if we need to later. Continuing to operate the world's economy on assumptions of untested hypothesis is egregiously intellectually and economically negligent. That patents exist at all with no proof they're beneficial is the problem. That problem can not be fixed until we've abolished patents.

If you assert that there are no problems with the patent system then I must point out: Ignorant people like you, who operate based merely on assumptions without any evidence to back their claims, are the problem.

There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations.

There's a difference between "there is no test for obviousness" and "I don't know what the test for obviousness is," and they should not be used interchangeably when you mean the latter. The Examiner can make a prima facie case that a claimed invention is obvious by showing that one or more pieces of prior art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element in the claim. So, if a claim recites A+B+C and the Examiner can show one piece of prior art that teaches A+B and another that teaches

No it doesn't. Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all. Saying that is as stupid as saying "Oh that little boy killed his sister on accident with a gun. Its the guns fault!" or "Violent video games made my sun kill those people!" no the video games didn't make him kill anyone he killed those people, no it isn't the guns fault because its the parents fault much like when there are stupid patent lawsuits it isn't the systems fault, its the company who files the suits fault.

Guns? That's so obviously an attempted strawman it's not even funny. And you're even wrong on that one too - the parent is to blame. Nobody else could have put the gun within reach, nobody else could have neglected to teach the kid about gun safety, nobody else could have been stupid enough to keep ammunition around with the gun. If you really want to shift blame around like an idiot, you could blame gun producers. Or sellers. Or anyone along the chain that ends with putting a gun in the hand of a child. I'

Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

So if you want to blame something for a problem them blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea.

By your own logic Samsung and Apple can not be blamed. They are only "filling for horribly dumb lawsuits" because they are "a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations" -- They are artificial amoral corporate entities, and they must act the way they do because the rules say they must do so or be held accountable by their shareholders: Profit by any means is why they do this.

So, why don't you heed your own advice and "blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea" of corporate personhood?

You're the kind of guy who cries "Cheater!" and blames the AI for following the rules of the game.

Indeed, patents, like guns, are not to blame. Both are just tools.However, even if guns are OK, there are laws to prevent people using them to harm other people. In fact crimes involving guns are taken very seriously and often result in the most severe sentences.In Apple vs Samsung cases, bullshit patents are cleary used as weapon to harm the other party. And they keep firing at each other, western style, and there is no sheriff with sufficient authority to make them stop. Here lies the problem with patent

I don't entirely agree with you, but it has been pointed out that some "rights holders" have bought up patents as a defense against being sued by patent trolls. So yeah, it makes sense, in a way, to file for trivial patents as a defense against other trivial patents.

It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce, get together, and lobby for patent reform - along with copyright reform.

The system is most definitely broken. I don't think that Samsung is taking the "best" approach to fixing the real problem - not by a long shot.

We need an analogy here, I think. A housing developer built on some low lying land, in a "classy" area of town. All the in-crowd bought his houses - that is, the "rights holders bought homes in the subdivision. The city's sewer system backs up onto these properties. Samsung's "fix" here, is to add three inches of topsoil to their own property to keep the sewerage from running onto their own property. Of course, that does nothing about the sewerage running in the streets, or on their neighbor's yards. The whole neighborhood still stinks to high heaven, and it's an unhealthy place to live.

It's time for the subdivision to partner with government, and get the damned sewer system fixed, and get the crap out of everyone's neighborhoods!!

Alright - you've driven your car into the city's sewer plant, and the roof is six inches under the surface of one of the ponds. You and all the other "rights holders" are hoping to use some jumper cables to get the car started again, so that you can drive it out of the pond.

It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce, get together, and lobby for patent reform - along with copyright reform.

There's a saying of "be careful what you wish for" because you can bet Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung would love to do this. But the patent reform they want would ensure that no one else can enter the market.

Ditto copyright - they're going to ensure that the big companies can take copyright with a token payment and anyone else

It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce

They did try that but Apple and a bunch of random patent trolls wouldn't play ball. In Apple's case it is because they don't have any valuable technology patents, only daft design patents on rounded corners and the like. Even if there was a truce Apple would still need to license tech patents under FRAND terms, but no-one needs their patent on page curling.

I don't entirely agree with you, but it has been pointed out that some "rights holders" have bought up patents as a defense against being sued by patent trolls. So yeah, it makes sense, in a way, to file for trivial patents as a defense against other trivial patents.

Obviously Samsung, being Samsung, will use this patent purely defensively. Most probably to defend sales if HTC, LG and others wake up and spend some more money on marketing their phones:-) I mean they are such an outstanding company with only the best of motives, several convictions in 2012 for price fixing, a CEO who was convicted for tax evasion, people getting cancer in their factories from chemical poisoning. And let's not forget their patents on rounded corners (which are strangely never mentioned, b

IMNSHO anything that is an obvious idea, and can be trivially implemented by one skilled in said craft should not be patentable... This includes any [simulation of real-world activity] on a [generic computing interface]. I really with the US-PTO would get a clue already.

IMNSHO anything that is an obvious idea, and can be trivially implemented by one skilled in said craft should not be patentable... This includes any [simulation of real-world activity] on a [generic computing interface]. I really with the US-PTO would get a clue already.

There could be a lot of people agreeing with this. I also envision them rubbing their palms in excitement because there is now a lot to do for them: When does an idea stop being obvious? Is it related to the skill of the practitioner? Does that mean that if I am an average skill worker and have an idea that clashes with a patent then this idea is patentable and I am a violator, while at the same time some very high skill worker can come up with the same idea and in that case he is OK because the idea can be

As to when an idea is obvious, that would be a car by case basis... However, stimulating a real world activity an a computer is always an obvious idea... As is doing something that one device does on another device... As to trivial to someone... If it has been implemented before, in this case the pieces of page turn animation and responding to touch input, then yes it is trivial. For the most part, anything that is written as a program is both obvious and trivial to implement, and as such not deserving of

The problem is patent officers aren't masters in individual fields of study to be able to determine if something is "obvious". A patent officers approval doesn't necessarily mean that the patent isn't obvious or even not already patented. That's a job for the courts and submitter. There is supposed to be a level of restraint on the submitter to not post something obvious in their field and to do diligence in ascertaining whether or not a patent should be granted for their idea or if there are existing paten

I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field. I think that right there would help quite a bit. there is no reason someone who went to school for cooking but gets the qualifications and becomes a patent officer should have any reason saying yes or no to something such as computer systems / hardware or engine design etc.

I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field.

I don't think that is entirely the problem. The other issue is that it is far easier for a patent office to say 'yes' to patents because if they refuse an application this sort of thing [slashdot.org] happens and, if the lawyer is backed by a large multinational you will probably end up with a major legal battle on your hands. It's essentially intimidation with lawyers to approve the application.

I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field. I think that right there would help quite a bit. there is no reason someone who went to school for cooking but gets the qualifications and becomes a patent officer should have any reason saying yes or no to something such as computer systems / hardware or engine design etc.

That's a brilliant idea... We could have a classification system wherein patent applications are sorted by area of technology and assigned to patent units with specialized Examiners who are skilled in those fields to apply prior art and test for obviousness. We can call them "art units [uspto.gov]".

There is supposed to be a level of restraint on the submitter to not post something obvious in their field and to do diligence in ascertaining whether or not a patent should be granted for their idea or if there are existing patents that cover the idea.

Good point. If I recall correctly from my brief encounters with the patent system, if you don't bring the examiner's attention to what could arguably be considered prior art, it explicitly counts against you should your patent be challenged. It may be that large corporations have realized that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law' definitely applies here, and they can cause a lot of trouble for a competitor even with a shaky patent, for example by dragging things out to the point where it becomes moot, or

I thought rejecting a patent application would be a better incentive for money. After all if they send in another application for the same innovation/invention they have to pay the fee again, but then I thought, no the corporations would just stop applying for patents of stupid stuff.

Maybe patent clerks salaries' should be tied for the number of applictions they reject for a valid reason. A QA system would be in set so up where other clerks would check their. If a decision is overturned than they lose point

The most accurate approach would be to have people with limited power granting patents. There should be very few patents getting granted. Getting a patent is something that you should earn by producing something genuinely novel that advances our society and can net you money. Patents for snowballs should be ignored. Patents for a real innovation (I have not seen one in my life time) that is truly unique. Maybe. Rockets were not even a unique innovation. Going to the moon was just the appropriate application

See, that's the problem. It's hard to judge what's truly innovative because all work is based on previous work and if we only granted say 1 patent every 30 years it seems pretty ridiculous to have patents anyway. At that point, you would be better off abolishing patents and (here's my idea) rewarding the inventor or group with lots of money. Oh wait, apparently "my" idea has already been proposed according to wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents. Funny how that works, and

The telephone, calculus, and the special theory of relativity were all made or discovered very close to each other.

Not to be a dick, but you should check your facts before posting. Calculus predates the telephone and theory of relativity by a couple thousand years. If you are referring to infinitesimal calculus, then you are still off by at least a couple hundred years. Here [wikipedia.org] is a reference.

I think he was referring to three examples of the same idea being discovered twice at around the same time in each case. E.g. Calculus (Newton and Leibniz), and the telephone (Bell and Swan) are classic examples. I don't know of anybody else working on relativity at the same time as Einstein, but considering the explosion in theoretical physics at the time (e.g. quantum mechanics) it is unlikely that relativity would have remained undiscovered for long.

I don't know of anybody else working on relativity at the same time as Einstein, but considering the explosion in theoretical physics at the time (e.g. quantum mechanics) it is unlikely that relativity would have remained undiscovered for long.

Patents are written in rambling legalese and are not straightforward to read, especially software patents since they describe an abstract concept rather than a tangible object and quite often the product doesn't even exist. The abstract of a software patent is thus often meaninglessly vague and the examiner must drill down through all the claims to get an idea of what it's really trying to patent.

why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.

Because it's a quasi-judicial decision, and is subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. "Obvious" is a legal conclusion, like "guilty", and must be supported by evidence. No matter how guilty a judge or jury thinks a defendant looks, their conclusion must be supported by evidence, and if there's no evidence, then a conviction of "but we had a gut feeling he was guilty" will be overturned. Similarly, no matter how obvious we feel dreck like this is, that conclusion must be supported by evid

> Or... they're patenting it before Amazon or Apple do so in order to avoid being sued themselves.My suspicion is that you're correct--judging by Apple's past behavior, Apple would just add this to their patent on the corner of page curl animation and sue Samsung for "infringing" the patent they worked around.

If it is a design pattent, I don't see the problem with this. They may want to ensure that they have a certain look on their ereaders which is not faked by other ereaders.This is totally acceptable, kinda like round corners are acceptable (with a lot of other rules) to ensure your device is not faked.

If its not a design pattent, its certainly not worth being granted on basis that its not really novel.

And as a personal opinion on the thing, I actually like the kindle approach of just going to the next page a

Seriously, with as litigious as everyone is, who WOULDN'T patent every thing they could think of, if only to keep "the other guy" from litigating you to oblivion?

Not that I'm saying Samsung won't exploit such patents. I'm sure they can, and will. But that's how the game is played, so instead of getting riled at Samsung ( or Apple, or anyone else for that matter ) for suing everyone for absurd patents, shouldn't we, instead, be outraged at the system that allows and encourages such behavior?

Seriously, with as litigious as everyone is, who WOULDN'T patent every thing they could think of, if only to keep "the other guy" from litigating you to oblivion?

Not that I'm saying Samsung won't exploit such patents. I'm sure they can, and will. But that's how the game is played, so instead of getting riled at Samsung ( or Apple, or anyone else for that matter ) for suing everyone for absurd patents, shouldn't we, instead, be outraged at the system that allows and encourages such behavior?

Remember Apple started playing this game when someone sued THEM for one of those niggling patents on the iPhone. Knowing that their phone was going to be a big ticket item, they really did not have any choice but to play this game... No one, not Samsung, Google, Microsoft, whoever does.

Apple's patent was a design patent -- design patents cover purely ornamental aspects of a functional device.Samsung's patent is a utility patent -- utility patents cover functionality only, and are what most people think of when they say "patent" with no specifier.

Not saying this makes one right and the other wrong, just that it's an important distinction which a lot of press coverage, including/.'s own summary, is ignoring.

Like the one that Google/Motorola is losing right now against Microsoft over h.264. Google asked for four billion dollars per year for you to watch h.264 videos on an Xbox. But in your warped world view that is probably purely defensive.

So here we have Apple an American company, Samsung a South-Korean one and the United States Patent also an American entity. Now I don't know as a Canadian who has been observing Americans for a while how much credibility, even with truckloads of facts or legal proof, any American is willing to give to a foreign entity, but I still find it far fetched to believe Samsung has any chance at all to have anything enforced in this one. Apple will change the colours, US patents will say it's OK, new patent, case

My point is that I want to be sure any prior art that might be useful for a challenge to the patent is brought out of obsurity, so the challenger's lawyers don't lose when they could have won had they known about it.

This reminds me of the patent that was granted (and later revoked) for the method of swinging on a swing. http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227 [google.com]So I'm forced to ask the obvious. How is virtual page turning novel and unique compared to doing it with paper?

This is yet another "patent on a digital analog to a well known physical process" patent. You know, "a system and methodology for doing something we've done for centuries, but on a computer".

People have been turning pages in books for a very long time. It's a well understood process.

I seriously doubt that there's any real technical innovation or invention in using existing touch-screen technology to make it look like you're doing something which is already well known for physical books.

It's a visual metaphor, nothing more. I don't think Apple should have been granted a patent, and I don't think Samsung should.